andysofun 2024-11-27 08:20 p.m.May it please the court.
Your honor, there’s a reason why we have laws. They keep people safe. They ensure order in society. But today you heard about an officer—whose job it is to uphold those laws—ignore them. That’s why the state brought this case.
As the state, we had the burden of proof. We had to prove our charges—evasion, reckless driving, and excessive speeding—beyond a reasonable doubt.
I’ll start with the first charge, evasion. During this trial both ParkRangerBilly and mattcern testified how they engaged their lights and sirens to pull over the defendant. His response? To keep driving in the same dangerous manner. And we know this decision was willful because ParkRangerBilly crashed into the defendant’s windshield, so the defendant must’ve seen ParkRangerBilly’s attempts to stop him.
The charge of evasion has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Next is reckless driving, which is driving in a manner a reasonable person would consider reckless. The defense has attempted to cast doubt on the defendant's speed by claiming that because the defendant's speed wasn't measured using "verifiable electronic means," we can't be sure whether the defendant was speeding. However, in this case, we have two credible experienced law enforcement officers testifying that the defendant was speeding and testimony about a vehicle's speed is admissible: United States v. Carlock, 806 F.2d 535, 552 (5th Cir.1986) (recognizing that a "common illustration" of an admissible opinion under Rule 701 is "an expression of opinion by a lay observer of a car's speed"). As ParkRangerBilly said, "I can say without a doubt that he was speeding," At least 100-110 mph if not more," and mattcern said, "I believe that the vehicle had to be going greater than 100 miles per hour, as when myself and the Trooper initiated the pursuit the vehicle was able to gain a sizable distance on us."